In an unauthorized move, on January 9th, Senator Feinstein released, in its entirety, the transcript of the August 22, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Fusion GPS director, Glenn Simpson. The interview was part of the Senate's investigation into potential acts of collusion between Russia and then candidate Donald Trump. It is from this interview that we get information regarding Christopher Steele's activities with Fusion and information regarding the meeting that took place between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian operatives.Although the release of the entirety of the transcripts brings little extra information to light regarding Fusion's findings and the funding of Fusion activities, there are a few points that stand out.First, it was Christopher Steele who suggested that Simpson go to the FBI with the information they had just obtained regarding potential cooperation between the Trump Campaign and foreign operatives. Recall that Steele was the former British intelligence officer hired by Fusion to look into potential ties between the Trump campaign and foreign operatives. It was Steele that produced the now mostly debunked Russian Dossier that was a) largely funded by the Democratic National Committee; and b) laced with false information provided by the Russians. What a coincidence that Steele would be the one to first suggest that Fusion go to the FBI to suggest launching an investigation into the Trump Campaign!All of this suggests one of two things. Either Steele is the absolute worst spy in the world and is lucky to be alive in light of his foolhardiness, or Steele is a willing conspirator with the Democrats and the Russians to frame Donald Trump. Interesting that the press is not evaluating Steele's motivations further.Second, it appears the reason why Simpson felt comfortable approaching the FBI regarding Trump is because there was a corroborating source inside the Campaign. Who was this source? How reliable was he? And was it Steele himself who discovered this "source"?The transcript does not shed much light on this topic because of Simpson's and his attorney's, Joshua Levy, interest in protecting their sources. After all, said Levy, someone had already been killed as a result of the release of the Dossier!This last point is absolutely fascinating, but perhaps even more intriguing is the total lack of follow up by the Judiciary Committee's lawyers. There were no questions from the attorneys regarding who was killed, the circumstances by which he or she was killed, and for what reason. In a moment of shear incompetence, the comment was just allowed to sit there, unaddressed.And there is one more implication to the release of the transcript by Senator Feinstein: the damage to the credibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Recall that Simpson sat before the Committee voluntarily. Ostensibly, he did this as the result of a willingness to cooperate with the investigation. No subpoena was issued, but at the beginning of the inquiry, the lawyers told Simpson that the interview was confidential and that he was prohibited from discussing it with anyone outside of that room. Admittedly, Simpson has called for the release of the transcript, so potentially, there was no angst on his part regarding the unauthorized actions of Senator Feinstein. But consider this. What do you think this breach of confidentiality will do to the willingness of witnesses to cooperate with future investigations? The answer, of course, is decidedly negative.

The DACA ruling

In another striking development on January 9, Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee from San Francisco, issued an injunctive order prohibiting President Trump from moving forward with the rescindment of President Obama's DACA order. Although it only applied to established DACA applicants and left untouched the ban on future applications, the order is offensive nevertheless, and demonstrates the terrible problem plaguing our country as a result of the actions of activist judges.Essentially, the plaintiffs, which included the State of California, argued that President Trump has acted randomly and capriciously in removing the DACA order because, amongst other reasons, he did not give notice and did not allow of a period of public commentary prior to issuing his rescindment. But here's the thing, neither did Obama. Obama himself issued his own DACA order singlehandedly, without due process, and outside any compliance with any statutory requirements. So, when President Trump acted to discontinue the DACA order, he was actually rescinding an illegal act, making Alsup's ruling even more egregious. Additionally, the judge applied his order to the whole nation. This latter issue is particularly problematic as it is allowing the judiciary to paralyze policy decisions on a national scale even though the district of any particular judge does not encompass a large geographical area.This latter problem is actually one that can be fixed by Congress. Congress has the authority to create and defined the powers of the lower courts. As evidenced by the results of this case, it is time for Congress to limit the scope of judicial orders to only the geographical extent of their district.

Mueller Wants to Speak to the President.

Recently, we have been getting indications that Special Counsel on Russian Collusion, Robert Mueller, wants to speak to the President of the United States in conjunction with his investigation. Of course, it comes as no surprise that Mueller would have questions for Donald Trump, but Donald Trump, as President of the United States doesn't have to comply. As a matter of fact, any counsel's inclination when representing the President ought to be to prevent such an interview from happening. But apparently, President Trump wants to speak to Mueller in the hopes that such a conversation would finally result in the end of the Mueller's misguided investigation. After all this time investigating potential avenues of Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and any foreign operatives, Mueller has not yet found any significant evidence for it. The whole effort has been a disaster for the Democrats who could not stand to face the reality that their darling candidate, Hillary Clinton, had lost to Trump. So, they launched these phony charges of collusion in an attempt to have Trump removed from office; except that there was no collusion.So we are now left with a situation where all this money and energy has been expended just to find that what Trump had been saying all along was true.Perhaps even more intriguing are the topics that Mueller wishes to discuss with Trump. Mueller wants to talk to Trump about Flynn and Comey's firing, and not about Russian collusion.What does this mean to Donald Trump? It means that the end of the investigation is likely coming to an end, and that, defeated, Mueller is finding no evidence of collusion.Just like President Trump said.

Lots of info to process. There is so much corruption in the 3 branches of our govt. If we are one nation under God with life, liberty and justice for all, why do we even need a legislature? We as a people are responsible to follow God's will and law to love God and abide in Him, love ourselves and others, be accountable for our actions. If we have a disagreement with another that we can't resolve, we go to our local judge who has knowledge and discernment to resolve the problem, following God's principles. If a party refuses to comply they are exiled or killed for disobedience and rebellion. Would put a stop to all this stupidity and waste of time and taxpayers money. the Judicial committee isn't even interested in asking who was killed over this dossier. If Mueller doesn't know that Flynn and Comey were "fired" because they didn't follow their job description, as most of those who have a govt job are all guilty of. Each job needs to be investigated. If not allowed by Constitution, cut it. If it is against God's will, limits personal responsibility/liberty, stop it. Close the FRB, we have a US Treasury, keep enough money in circulation to balance with goods, services, basic needs/protections.

Your question about a Republic vs. a Democracy dates back to considerations made by the Greeks. By the time of Aristotle, political philosophers recognized that if you had a pure Democracy, the system would inevitably devolve to anarchy Nothing would ever get done, and the system would implode upon itself. For example, in your local judge example, the local judge would have no laws to follow in making his decisions. Even if society tried to pass laws, under a pure democracy, those who were accomplished (the oligarchy in the time of the Greeks) would always be overwhelmed by the masses, thus suppressing any drive at moving forward in society. And of course, the process of passing a single law would be overwhelming.
If given no direction, then the local judge would be the local monarch because whatever he said would go and no laws would be present to check him.
The Framers considered all of this and decided the much better way to go was via a Republic where the people elected officials to study and pass laws. This, of course, resulted in the comment by Dr. Franklyn when asked what kind of government the Framers had given the country, "A republic if you can keep it."
James Madison also made a comment relating to you concerns when he said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But, of course, we are not.
The imperfect answer to your concerns is the decentralization of powers. We have drifted way too far from the original vision. We know man is prone to temptations and corruptions. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The best way to protect against that is to maximally spread the swath of power, and provide each department with robust checks. Sadly, over the twentieth century, power was allowed to excessively centralize leading to many of the problems you identify. I explain many of those abandonments and how to fix them in my podcasts. I encourage you to tune in.
Thank you so much for the question.
Doc G